A sideline discussion on Copper and overall benefits/detriments of prophylactic treatment in QT

[threebuoys]

@threebuoys
I repeat my questions:

Your question is loaded with your projection/bias that we need to medicate. Talk to @PaulB about your sceanario. He did it.

Not true.

My questions are simple. They do not suggest an answer. They ask you how would you respond to a new hobbyiist or an experienced hobbyist who realizes he has a case of ich or velvet? He has an immediate problem he wants to solve. What do you tell him?

Here are the questions again.

On day one, should a new hobbyist assume his tank has immunity? As he adds new fish to his tank should he “let nature take its course” and assume if a fish dies it was for the greater good? On day 1,000 should the experienced hobbyist assume his immune tank is all a new fish addition needs for survival and “let nature take its course” and assume if a fish dies it was for the greater good?


This has notihing to do with Paul. I respect him for what he has accomplished. That does not mean I believe I should follow the same path.

 

[Subsea]

Not true.

My questions are simple. They do not suggest an answer. They ask you how would you respond to a new hobbyiist or an experienced hobbyist who realizes he has a case of ich or velvet? He has an immediate problem he wants to solve. What do you tell him?

Here are the questions again.

On day one, should a new hobbyist assume his tank has immunity? As he adds new fish to his tank should he “let nature take its course” and assume if a fish dies it was for the greater good? On day 1,000 should the experienced hobbyist assume his immune tank is all a new fish addition needs for survival and “let nature take its course” and assume if a fish dies it was for the greater good?


This has notihing to do with Paul. I respect him for what he has accomplished. That does not mean I believe I should follow the same path.

I repeat, risk management is a balance between pros & cons.

The scenario you describe, requires much more information: experience level of hobbiest, fish introduced and what fish are in the tank. I typically avoid disease forums because at that point there is no easy cure, only emergency response. I don’t write books or moderate disease forums.

I assume you’ll will get tired of continuing to call me out. I have unwatched this thread more than once.

 

[Lasse]

why does EVERY major public aquarium have a comprehensive, proactive quarantine process?

My bold - IMO and IME - this is not completely true true according to proactive (prophylactic) chemical/drug treatment ( please see here)- many use only observation QT.
Even if it all public aquaria would use prophylactic treatment - is it right to put this drugs in the hands of hobby people without any responsible veterinarian involved? In EU and Canada many of the drugs sold to private persons in US are banned without a description from a veterinarian. In many EU countries - prophylactic treatment is forbidden because of animal welfare laws, - its OK to use drugs and chemicals for diagnosed diseases but not for "in cases of" - No animal in human care shall be exposed to unnecessary danger.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

My bold - IMO and IME - this is not completely true true according to proactive (prophylactic) chemical/drug treatment ( please see here)- many use only observation QT.
Even if it all public aquaria would use prophylactic treatment - is it right to put this drugs in the hands of hobby people without any responsible veterinarian involved? In EU and Canada many of the drugs sold to private persons in US are banned without a description from a veterinarian. In many EU countries - prophylactic treatment is forbidden because of animal welfare laws, - its OK to use drugs and chemicals for diagnosed diseases but not for "in cases of" - No animal in human care shall be exposed to unnecessary danger.

Sincerely Lasse

This is actually interesting - I'm curious - does Europe ban flea and tick prophylaxis for dogs? Vaccines are widely used in Europe, right?. My guess is that in case of lets say meningitis exposure, Europe allows prophylactic treatment - ditto for influenza, and a number of other diseases. I tend to agree with you, though, that antibiotics in the hands of the general public is not a good idea, I'm not sure that that applies to copper in a QT tank? Though I love Europe, I find many of their law's somewhat over-protective (note -I didn't say 'wrong').

 

[MnFish1]

My bold - IMO and IME - this is not completely true true according to proactive (prophylactic) chemical/drug treatment ( please see here)- many use only observation QT.
Even if it all public aquaria would use prophylactic treatment - is it right to put this drugs in the hands of hobby people without any responsible veterinarian involved? In EU and Canada many of the drugs sold to private persons in US are banned without a description from a veterinarian. In many EU countries - prophylactic treatment is forbidden because of animal welfare laws, - its OK to use drugs and chemicals for diagnosed diseases but not for "in cases of" - No animal in human care shall be exposed to unnecessary danger.

Sincerely Lasse

From your article:

"More than 60% of institutions with closed systems use copper sulfate baths for marine teleosts at 0.15-0.25 mg/L Cu2+ for 14-30 days. Alternatives to copper therapy include salinity changes, formalin, chloroquine, or either an extended quarantine or further diagnostics. Over 50% of institutions with closed systems use formalin baths for teleosts, with doses ranging from 12.5-25 mg/L for long-term baths, to 125-250 mg/L for 30-60 min baths. Organophosphate use is rare and only occurs in response to specific parasites that cannot be treated with other medications.

Medicated feeds containing fenbendazole and praziquantel are often used routinely in teleosts; doses vary widely. Praziquantel is also often used as a bath for teleosts and elasmobranchs, with doses ranging from 2 mg/L long-term baths, to 10 mg/L 3-hr baths. Antibiotics are not used routinely by most institutions, although other antibacterials are used. Two institutions report routine use of vibriosis vaccines in syngnathids."

One thing that I find extremely interesting is something that is not easily doable for the average hobbyist - i.e. biopsies, gill scrapings, etc. etc

 

[Lasse]

He has an immediate problem he wants to solve. What do you tell him?

Its easy - if it is a disease - treat it.

But there is no sign of a disease or clinical signs - only human fear that it could happen - do not treat

Vaccines are widely used in Europe, right?

IME vaccines is not considered to be prophylactic in this meaning. It is a way of "awake" your own immune system with help of trigger mechanisms

does Europe ban flea and tick prophylaxis for dogs?

As I remember - It have been up for discussion but I think it ended with some of them could only be sold with description. And I do not see this as a prophylactic treatment in general

More than 60% of institutions with closed systems use copper sulfate

Yes but that is a bit away from the stated "EVERY major public aquarium"

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Jay Hemdal]

My bold - IMO and IME - this is not completely true true according to proactive (prophylactic) chemical/drug treatment ( please see here)- many use only observation QT.
Even if it all public aquaria would use prophylactic treatment - is it right to put this drugs in the hands of hobby people without any responsible veterinarian involved? In EU and Canada many of the drugs sold to private persons in US are banned without a description from a veterinarian. In many EU countries - prophylactic treatment is forbidden because of animal welfare laws, - its OK to use drugs and chemicals for diagnosed diseases but not for "in cases of" - No animal in human care shall be exposed to unnecessary danger.

Sincerely Lasse

It is completely true! You don’t know the backstory on this study, Google is not your friend. Do you have a copy of Dr. Clayton’s book? It has an entire chapter on quarantine. She works for the New England Aquarium, they have one of the most extensive quarantine processes - they have an entire quarantine facility off site in Quincy

I said for AZA facilities, about a quarter of the aquariums polled are not AZA. I am an accreditation inspector for the AZA so I know a little about this.

Jay

 

[Lasse]

Once again - use your words with caution. I can´t guess (or not anyone else) that you mean US public aquarium members of the ACA when you state

EVERY major public aquarium

When I respond to you - I respond to what you are writing - not what you think when you write because I can´t guess that.

And be careful when you indicate that I take my knowledge and thoughts solely from the net. I use it as a fact checker and often refresh my old knowledge with new science.

I have rise two different questions to you about the copper compound you state

There is zero evidence that amine based copper products are toxic to fish

1. How can you see with a simple copper test that a compound is a chelated amine copper product
2. Which pathway has the killing effect of your mentioned products. Is it the whole product or a slowly release of ionic copper that kill

Please answer these questions

These questions are important if you want to understand if the treatment have any longtime side effects on the treated fish or not and give us a fair chance to do our own risk/benefit decision about using these products.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[KrisReef]

I’m just going to toss this out there: if medications are toxic/bad and quarantine is stressful, why does EVERY major public aquarium have a comprehensive, proactive quarantine process? Are they all wrong/misguided? Hardly - they do it because it is “best practice”. The AZA actually requires it to meet accreditation requirements.

The quarantine protocol that I promote here is derived from my public aquarium work. I’d say it is about middle of the road in terms of complexity, and slightly modified for home use.

Jay

Jay
I have been reading this thread with great enjoyment. Part of that enjoyment comes from our love for the fishes we care about and our experiences in doing so. Thanks for what you do to provide information so some folks can protect their fishes when they become ill. It's very kind of you to offer this up to folks when they need it.

Thank you for engaging in the possibly thankless dialogue, this last sentiment applies to many of the folks who have been engaged in dialogue, you know who you are.

I'm going to bed, catch up tomorrow, maybe.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

Once again - use your words with caution. I can´t guess (or not anyone else) that you mean US public aquarium members of the ACA when you state


When I respond to you - I respond to what you are writing - not what you think when you write because I can´t guess that.

And be careful when you indicate that I take my knowledge and thoughts solely from the net. I use it as a fact checker and often refresh my old knowledge with new science.

I have rise two different questions to you about the copper compound you state



1. How can you see with a simple copper test that a compound is a chelated amine copper product
2. Which pathway has the killing effect of your mentioned products. Is it the whole product or a slowly release of ionic copper that kill

Please answer these questions

These questions are important if you want to understand if the treatment have any longtime side effects on the treated fish or not and give us a fair chance to do our own risk/benefit decision about using these products.

Sincerely Lasse

I try to write as clearly as possible without betting bogged down in every little detail, but you dive in and try to pick my words apart. I could give you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps English is not your first language, but I don't think that is the issue. You just need to be less contrary.

You are incorrect about major public aquariums not using quarantine processes. The few exceptions are with large elasmobranchs like whale sharks and manta rays.

Here are your answers -

1. How can you see with a simple copper test that a compound is a chelated amine copper product? I see now, you didn't understand that I employ TWO tests to determine the presence of amines in chelated copper products - copper and ammonia. If you dose with an ionic copper product, you will get results like 0.20 ppm copper, zero ammonia. Cupramine tests around 0.50 ppm copper and .2 ammonia. Chelated amine copper products like coppersafe test at 2.25 ppm copper and 0.45 ppm ammonia. Using these numbers, it is clear which copper product is being employed.

2. Which pathway has the killing effect of your mentioned products. Is it the whole product or a slowly release of ionic copper that kill? It is the entire amine/copper molecule that kills the theronts. Ionic copper is not released, at least over normal time frames (30+ days) that the amine chelated products remain active.

Jay

 

[MnFish1]

I'm Still interested in @Lasse 's opinion (and others) as to whether the supply chain issues in the USA tilt the balance or risk:reward in favor of prophylactic QT?

 

[Lasse]

incorrect about major public aquariums not using quarantine processes

About to note words - I have never state that public aquariums not using quarantine processes - I have state that not all use chemical prophylactic quarantine process - that´s a huge difference - and you know that.

1. How can you see with a simple copper test that a compound is a chelated amine copper product? I see now, you didn't understand that I employ TWO tests to determine the presence of amines in chelated copper products - copper and ammonia. If you dose with an ionic copper product, you will get results like 0.20 ppm copper, zero ammonia. Cupramine tests around 0.50 ppm copper and .2 ammonia. Chelated amine copper products like coppersafe test at 2.25 ppm copper and 0.45 ppm ammonia. Using these numbers, it is clear which copper product is being employed.

Which copper test do you use?

And which total ammonia test can measure bound ammine groups? Interesting to know - because you say that the amine/copper compound is stable - which means that there can not be any free NH3/NH4 to measure or..........

2. Which pathway has the killing effect of your mentioned products. Is it the whole product or a slowly release of ionic copper that kill? It is the entire amine/copper molecule that kills the theronts. Ionic copper is not released, at least over normal time frames (30+ days) that the amine chelated products remain active.

Scientific references of this?

And another question - why is not this method mentioned in any publication that I have read concerning parasite treatments in fish farms - including recirculated fish farms. Such a method - As you declare - safe for fish in prolonged treatment, no sublethal damage and no copper accumulation in human food - this is worth a fortune in the recirculation fish farm industry and should be in widely use if it exist. I can´t find any references to amine/copper complex in the scientific literature I can access. Chelated products - yes - but they are shown to bioaccumulate copper in the fish - sometimes more than ionic copper, When I see statement like yours - I always try to find references that either confirms or reject the statement. If it confirm the statement - I have learn something new - if it reject the statement - then I protest and ask for more information

You just need to be less contrary.

Surly - maybe one side of the coin

supply chain issues in the USA tilt the balance or risk:reward in favor of prophylactic QT?

I can only guess here but in other treads it has been mentioned that many importers and LFS in the US use low amount of copper in their system to prevent disease outbreak. The outbreak happens instead when the fish meet its new environment with a new micro fauna. To constant use low concentrations of copper in their system has been rare in Europe - even if we are closer to the US situation today. If this is true - which I do not know - it means that a new prophylactic treatment may be very unfortunate. But this is only my thoughts - I can´t prove it

What I know from the past is that many curators (at that time) in public aquariums advocate for this method (low copper concentration in the water) in fish only system as a way of handle disease outbreak and get algae free aquariums and it was copied by the LFS back in the times.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[KrisReef]

I'm Still interested in @Lasse 's opinion (and others) as to whether the supply chain issues in the USA tilt the balance or risk:reward in favor of prophylactic QT?

Depends on what the fish(es) was/were exposed too before and as they were put in the shipping carton. A fresh batch of clean salt or a bucket of water change water that was supposed to be dumped but got mixed up? In other words, if the fish is healthy or sick with pathogens when it gets to the final destination is what will determine the next step(s), panic or preparedness.

In human populations, we can go to the hospital or we can go to grandmas for chicken soup. At my age only one option of these is left and I probably would go to the hospital and suffer there in a crappy, sleepless bed in favor of staying home with a useless naggy drunk wife who will wake me to ask when I am going to mow the lawn, wash the car, etc.

If my home was healthy I would never go to the hospital, except to die.

And believe me, I am ready to die, but not on this hill. Medicine and healthy environments are not interchangeable or the only options available for taking care of animals to provide optimum prognosis, imo/ime.

So many people pet their dogs, pat their childrens heads, and don't hand catch their fishes to place them gently in a tank while explaining to the fish the situation. Sure it's crazy to think fish understand. Why should I think my fish will listen when my wife doesn't?

Hopefully this will not be recieved as an angonistic but as a synergistic posting for sides and minds to consider.
KR

 

[threebuoys]

I can only guess here but in other treads it has been mentioned that many importers and LFS in the US use low amount of copper in their system to prevent disease outbreak. The outbreak happens instead when the fish meet its new environment with a new micro fauna. To constant use low concentrations of copper in their system has been rare in Europe - even if we are closer to the US situation today. If this is true - which I do not know - it means that a new prophylactic treatment may be very unfortunate. But this is only my thoughts - I can´t prove it

What I know from the past is that many curators (at that time) in public aquariums advocate for this method (low copper concentration in the water) in fish only system as a way of handle disease outbreak and get algae free aquariums and it was copied by the LFS back in the times.

Sincerely Lasse

Do you have any data that support your comment that many importers and LFS use copper and curators advocate low copper concentrations, and also in what time period was this the case? My personal sample size is very, very small. I just haven't heard anything ever other than comments like yours that this has been the case. With the advent of the internet seems like these types of "urban legends" proliferate. Unfortunately, it happens all the time on this forum. I don't expect everyone to try to document in their comments the scientific source of every comment they make. On the other hand, if I read first hand comments by lifetime, trained and employed scientists which address issues they have dealt with in a scientific manner, I tend to believe those comments have much more than an ounce of truth.

 

[Lasse]

On the other hand, if I read first hand comments by lifetime, trained and employed scientists which address issues they have dealt with in a scientific manner, I tend to believe those comments have much more than an ounce of truth.

What do you know about me? Maybe I´m one of these? Maybe not. But do you really know? Maybe I want my arguments, facts for my thoughts, experiences and ideas speak for themselves rather than push down opponents with rather uninteresting (to the current topics of discussion) recounting of my own achievements?

As I said before - according to US supply chain - my only source is what I have read here. The European chain - my own experiences

According to low copper in public aquarium - that I have been told to, heard and read by myself - and we are talking about 70:ties and 80:ties. and you would be very surprised if you know what many public aquariums use in order to have the pipes free from settling mussel larvae's - at least as late as around 2005 and probably still in some countries.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[MnFish1]

Do you have any data that support your comment that many importers and LFS use copper and curators advocate low copper concentrations, and also in what time period was this the case? My personal sample size is very, very small. I just haven't heard anything ever other than comments like yours that this has been the case. With the advent of the internet seems like these types of "urban legends" proliferate. Unfortunately, it happens all the time on this forum. I don't expect everyone to try to document in their comments the scientific source of every comment they make. On the other hand, if I read first hand comments by lifetime, trained and employed scientists which address issues they have dealt with in a scientific manner, I tend to believe those comments have much more than an ounce of truth.

It's interesting - I go to an LFS - and I never buy fish in a tank that does not have invertebrates thriving (i.e. by definition- they do not have copper). This particular store devotes multiple hundred gallons for QT in their facility. And All of their fish have been QT'd

 

[MnFish1]

What do you know about me? Maybe I´m one of these? Maybe not. But do you really know? Maybe I want my arguments, facts for my thoughts, experiences and ideas speak for themselves rather than push down opponents with rather uninteresting (to the current topics of discussion) recounting of my own achievements?

As I said before - according to US supply chain - my only source is what I have read here. The European chain - my own experiences

According to low copper in public aquarium - that I have been told to, heard and read by myself - and we are talking about 70:ties and 80:ties. and you would be very surprised if you know what many public aquariums use in order to have the pipes free from settling mussel larvae's - at least as late as around 2005 and probably still in some countries.

Sincerely Lasse

@Lasse - you are one of my favorite contributors here. I still have one question - do you think the supply chain in the US - as compared to Europe - mitigates more towards treatment of fish (that are not symptomatic) - than not doing so. I just wanted your answer - to consider

 

[MnFish1]

Depends on what the fish(es) was/were exposed too before and as they were put in the shipping carton. A fresh batch of clean salt or a bucket of water change water that was supposed to be dumped but got mixed up? In other words, if the fish is healthy or sick with pathogens when it gets to the final destination is what will determine the next step(s), panic or preparedness.

In human populations, we can go to the hospital or we can go to grandmas for chicken soup. At my age only one option of these is left and I probably would go to the hospital and suffer there in a crappy, sleepless bed in favor of staying home with a useless naggy drunk wife who will wake me to ask when I am going to mow the lawn, wash the car, etc.

If my home was healthy I would never go to the hospital, except to die.

And believe me, I am ready to die, but not on this hill. Medicine and healthy environments are not interchangeable or the only options available for taking care of animals to provide optimum prognosis, imo/ime.

So many people pet their dogs, pat their childrens heads, and don't hand catch their fishes to place them gently in a tank while explaining to the fish the situation. Sure it's crazy to think fish understand. Why should I think my fish will listen when my wife doesn't?

Hopefully this will not be recieved as an angonistic but as a synergistic posting for sides and minds to consider.
KR

Actually - I'm going to redirect what you said a bit. For example for a fish to get from the Red Sea to Los Angeles - takes a much more stressful (longer) route than a fish going from the Red Sea to Munich or Stockholm. If stress is an issue for fish - I guess I would assume that a 17 hour flight vs a 5 hour flight would be more stressful. Thus I asked the question.

 

[MnFish1]

If there was a vaccine for fish, I would do it, because it would prevent my fish from getting sick and improve its immunity.
However stressing my fish and letting it macerate in poison ( all medecin are poisonous) for 45 days does not help it. It weakens it, and even possibly decrease its immunity. Medecin is useful and even great only if use when one it is needed.
I can understand/ agree with observation quarantine, and treating if needed, but absolutely do not agree to treat just in case.
I have never quarantined since I started over 10 years ago. However, I now have a tank with live rocks, snails and I grow macro algae in it. If I buy some new fish I might place them there to observe them first.
It is very difficult to never inadvertently introduce a foreign agent into a tank. So having non stressed, immune fish is a better alternative to my opinion.

I'm going to go for a concept. In the 1940's people died of polio - young people by the 1960's everyone was vaccinated. Later people exposed to meningitis died - but now people exposed are treated prophylactically with rifampin. Then - there is the needlestick issue in hospitals with HIV - Routinely in the 80's people were treated prophylactically with AZT. Its common epidemiology - and I'm not sure why so many people here are against it - it's like the people against covid vaccines.

 

[Lasse]

ou are one of my favorite contributors here. I still have one question - do you think the supply chain in the US - as compared to Europe - mitigates more towards treatment of fish (that are not symptomatic) - than not doing so. I just wanted your answer - to consider

I do not know that - the only thing I know is when I was helping a friend with direct imports of saltwater fish - we never, ever use prophylactic treatment. The few times when we get a disease (mostly white spot) they was treated separately with copper. we are talking about around 20 - 30,000 fish during a 18 years period. My friend was known to have among the best fishes in our area (southern Sweden)

The largest importer in Sweden of fresh water ornamental fish does not either use prophylactic treatment at that time (now - I do not know)

I'm going to go for a concept. In the 1940's people died of polio - young people by the 1960's everyone was vaccinated. Later people exposed to meningitis died - but now people exposed are treated prophylactically with rifampin. Then - there is the needlestick issue in hospitals with HIV - Routinely in the 80's people were treated prophylactically with AZT. Its common epidemiology - and I'm not sure why so many people here are against it - it's like the people against covid vaccines.

For me vaccine is not an prophylactic treatment - and in the other case you mentioned - there was (is) indications of a disease or pathogen. Its the same for me - I know that in all my stomach surgeries - I have got Metronidazole as prophylactic agent against infection of the stomach lining - and I thankful that all my use of this compound in my aquariums back in the 70 - 80 ties not had lead to a resistant gut flora. But the interesting thing is that it needs to be an indication of a disease (or pathogen)

There is another good example of vaccine - that for the measles. It was nearly eradicated here in Sweden 20 years ago but because of lower vaccination rate among immigrants and because of the anti-vaccine movement we have rare outbreaks now and than

Sincerely Lasse